Hello!


This blog is about Frequently Asked Questions in Quality Management and aims to collect the main information of our threads in QM and publish it in one single document, so the information can be easily find and people can search for a specific subject.

This document will be updated when new important threads appears.

If you have a suggestion of a good thread that are out of the list please give some feedback and I can add it here.


 

TopicThread

Usage Decision

reversal of Usage decision

Inspection lot have a status of Usage Decision, yet there is no UD code visible in the inspection lot

how to restrict the usage decision

Usage decision with retroactive date or manual

Automatic Usage Descision after Result Recording.

Quality Notification

Work flow through in Quality notification

Customer field in QM11 transaction

FM or BAPI For task creation in quality notification

QM Notification: defect quantity not updated correctly

Dynamic Modification Rule

(Inspection Lot) Dynamic Modification Rule for Production Order

Dynamic Rule at Charateristic Level

DMR & Annual Inspection

How to Implement Dynamic Modification Rule for Material & multiple vendor Combination

Inspection Lot

Cancelled Inspection Lots can be reverte the system status

Create Inspection lot with QI stock

QA32 No inspection plan could be found

Inspection lot QM CRTD

Inspection Lot - Change Batch

Remove MIC from particular Inspection lot

Inspection lot creation time

Result Recording

Colletive Result recording and Usage Decision

Change Result Recording after digital signature done

SMS alert to vendor about result recording

Long Text Issue

Results cannot be entered

Calculated Characteristics

Failing to do results recording

Smaller than, greater than limits

Stock Posting

Blocking of Stock Posting after doing Usage Decision

QI Stock in MD04

Stock inconsistency between MM and QM

Stock posting from "unrestricted usage" to "Quality inspection" stock

Quality Certificate

Vendor's Quality certificate recording for incoming material

SAP Quality Certificate for Procurement

Batch

Batch status at recurring insp lot creation

Batch field disappearing

Quality Info Record

using QI06

Sampling Procedure

Sampling Scheme

Sampling scheme

Physical sample

Physical sample

sample drawing procedure - Auto sample calculation.


Hello everyone

 

I was thinking that there are some QM statistics that may be of your interest, so I decided to make this blog post to show you KBAs View Count.

My idea is to make two rankings, Most viewed from 2014 and Most viewed from Month.

But, what is these rankings for?

I believe that rankings are interesting to point out spaces for improvement, so if you are part of the people that accessed this most viewed KBAs you can share your case and if the KBA did not work for you, you can bring the solution that resolve your problem.

 

If you guys like this idea, I can monthly update the ranking (if there are changes). Please let me know

 

 

5 Most viewed KBAs from 2014*

 

214 Views - 2011512 - Dump SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC in program SAPLCOVB

195 Views - 1911886 - Transaction code QS41 and QS51 ask transport request

163 Views - 1705378 - Dump SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC in result recording for an inspection lot when using the BAPI BAPI_INSPOPER_RECORDRESULTS

163 Views - 1705428-  Error message IM254 'Invalid object number (status management)' or IM258 'Object does not exist (status management)' in transaction QM02

128 Views - 1959957 - Usage decision result is not transferred to classification system

 

*Until 01.12.2014

 

 

5 Most viewed KBAs from November


24 Views - 1911886 - Transaction code QS41 and QS51 ask transport request

24 Views - 2011512 - Dump SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC in program SAPLCOVB

23 Views - 1680949 - Customizing or SAP application menu for the "Copy Inspection Results" function is missing

21 Views - 2068196 - QA495 - Stock transfer

17 Views - 1705428 - Error message IM254 'Invalid object number (status management)' or IM258 'Object does not exist (status management)' in transaction QM02

 



This kind of surprised me! And you, do you use these KBAs a lot in your projects, implementations or daily work?

I'm waiting for your opinion



Regards,

Natália Machado


QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 3

 

Previous Blogs:

 

QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 1

 

QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 2

 


GC’s and MIC’s  - Linking

 

So now you have gone through with the client and you have a list of General Characteristics (GC’s) that you need along with the descriptions, UOM’s and decimal places. So what’s next for this master data? I hate to say “that depends” but yes.. it does..

 

Before we link the GC’s up with a master inspection characteristic (MIC) we need to determine spec ranges or values for the test.  My suggestion is that regardless of whatever design you ultimately decide on, you should at this point determine the maximum ranges you intend to allow for each test.  This is NOT a spec range even though that term is utilized by many.  These values should be the minimum and maximum values that the test can theoretically have. 

 

Tests measured in percentages are the easiest ones here.  You normally won’t ever report anything below zero or anything above 100. Yes, there are exceptions.  Going above 100% for a measured test is usually pretty rare but it happens.  Some other tests may exceed 100% but these are often calculated tests that involve measuring some type of change.  In any case, you want to establish the highest upper limit and lowest lower limit. These may or may not be similar to what SAP calls an upper or lower plausibility limit which is maintained in the MIC.  Often times however, the plausibility limits may be set to even narrower ranges at times.

 

For our examples here I will use a percent test and a PPM test.  We will stick pretty much to standard tests for now.  We’ll use 0 – 100% and 0 – 10,000 for ppm. Why 10,000 you say?  Just because in this case.  In reality the people responsible for testing will know what is reasonable.  Just because a test can have a large value doesn’t mean we need to allow it.  Our goal is to reduce errors at every step possible and minimize potential errors that could impact the customer. 

 

If a customer has a ppm test where they have never, ever, recorded a result over 500 ppm, you might set the upper range to 500.  Even though theoretically a result of 6000 ppm is physically possible. 

 

A quantitative characteristic will either be a one-sided or two-sided spec.  In a one-sided spec the value will be written as <= 100.0 or >= 100.0.  A two sided spec as 93.0 – 95.0.  Make sure you include spaces between the operand and the values. A key point to keep in mind is that even though SAP allows you to enter  < and > signs they are not honored when linked to a MIC.    SAP will interpret a < as <= and a > as a >= in the MIC.  So if you really want < 100.0, you must enter <= 99.9 so that in the MIC, 100.0 will be valuated as out of spec.


This can cause various problems when using decimals or rounding and in how values are reported.  For more info on this you can check out this SCN discussion: http://scn.sap.com/thread/3170725.

 

When creating the general characteristic, the unit of measure (UOM), total characters, and number of decimal points must be provided.  The decimal point is a character and must be included in the count of characters.  100.0 would be counted as having 5 characters and one decimal space.

 

For our two characteristics we set up as follows.

 

Name

Description

UOM

Characters

Decimals

Spec Range

FE_PPM_0

Iron, ppm

ppm

5

0

<= 10000

ASSAY_PCT_1

Assay, %

%

5

1

0 – 100.0

 


We are now ready to create our general characteristics.   The above info is all you really need to create the general characteristics.  If you are building a spreadsheet for data loading you will need a Data Type field and other fields.  This isn’t a blog about data loading but is primarily about specifications so I’m not going to cover all the fields.  But if you are consulting, some of the fields you should understand and can be valuable to a client are:


 

Chars Group

Groups characteristics

Often done when multiple businesses share a client.  In which case it often relates to authorization group.

  1. Auth. Group

Limits editors for GC

 

Interval vals allowed

Allows range to be used

Primarily for one-sided specs.  Can be used for two-sided to put in a lowest detectable level value.

Negative Vals Allowed

Allows values < zero

 

Single Value

Default for GC’s.

MUST be used for all characteristics you want to link to MIC’s.

Entry required

Value must be recorded

Not normally used when linking to MIC’s

  1. Exp. Display

Allows entry and display in scientific notation

Not often used in most places

 

 

 

 

On the values screen.. DO NOT click on “additional values” on this screen.


Enter in the range you wish to allow for the test.  For the tests above, this would be <= 10000 and 0 – 100.0.

 

After making sure the characteristic is released, the new characteristic can be saved.

 

Qualitative characteristics might be discussed in a different blog since the goal of these blogs is to discuss options for handling spec ranges.  Since qualitative characteristics have no ranges and work by using catalogs, there can be no specs by material or customer.  So they really aren’t relevant to these discussions.

 

We should now have two general characteristics created.  The next blog will discuss setting up the MIC.

Foe below result achieved see calculation of how Mean Value, Standard deviation, Cp & Cpk is calculated in standard SAP

 

SPC calculation 1.jpg

See below result of Mean Value, Standard deviation, Cp & Cpk is calculated in standard SAP

 

SPC calculation 2.jpg

From above screen I have taken below reading

 

SPC calculation 3.jpg

1. Calculation of Mean value

 

So Mean Value,    = (Sum of Recorded Result) / No. of Record

                         

SPC calculation 4.jpg

          Mean Value     = 38.667                       

 

 

SPC calculation 5.jpg                 

SPC calculation 6.jpg                     

The mean (38.667) is closer to one of them than to the other, leading to a Cpk factor (0.17) that is lower than the Cp value (0.22). This implies that the LSL is more difficult to achieve than the USL. Non-conformities exist at both ends of the histogram.

 

 

 

Nitin J

My journey with SAP

Posted by Nitin J Nov 19, 2013

SAP:  System, application, products in data processing. It took me a while before I could actually remember the abbreviation.

What is SAP? What does it stand for?? Why do people use this?? Ain't the legacy system, MS Office, Outlook cool enough???

 

All these questions kept haunting me till I actually started working with SAP. I started with QM module as an end user, who's been instructed to carry out few transactions with limited access and who always got to look up to power users & core users, people in power with statements like 'this belongs to system settings and you can't do that', 'Come to me if you have a problem', 'Oh.. what did you do. This would crumble the system' and blah blah.....

 

Finally, I got an implementation project for SAP upgrade. I was chosen as module lead.

 

My feelings then,

WoW!! I'm a core user now (the powerful one ). Now I do have all the authorizations, access everything. But wait.. I still do not know how to use them

 

No issues , I got to play a bit around. I started with very basics. I had As-Is vs To-Be documentation, Integration sessions and Master data followed by testing, defect, re testing, defect, re re testing, defect.... n testing, defect.... Gosh!!

 

At this point, I used to think 'Now I know all the TCodes, I can prepare master data, I can modify master data. I can decide what value would the system take for a characteristic. I do know QM But this was the time for a twist.

 

My consultant used to tell me, why don't you drop this requirement. I used to tell him, why don't you simply accept that you don't know how to map this. Then he came up with a new word: RICEWF . Oops, what's that !!

My theory about the QM learning shattered into millions pieces. System, application, product was much easier than Reports, Interfaces, Conversions, Enhancements, Workflow, Forms

 

Anyway, I got to move further. Z development and then testing, defect, re testing, defect. Modifications done in program, testing & defect gone, but new defect came up, re testing & defect

 

I somehow learnt to live with this RICEWF thing and my life was moving very happily (with endless loop of testing and defects)

 

Time for a bang !! Even though it wasn't a Kingkong thing but my dreams of becoming QM consultant started fading away. Security-Basis-Authorization..... another new thing for me. And the worst part again, endless loop of testing defect testing defect testing defect........!!

 

Finally big day comes with all nervous moments. Go- live. In fact successful go- live .

Suddenly, I found all the statements ('this belongs to system settings and you can't do that', 'Come to me if you have a problem', 'Oh.. what did you do. This would crumble the system' and blah blah..... ) surrounding me. Did I fell into the same shoes or earlier power men were correct, I still don't know.

 

Never mind, I now know all the things. I know the business mapping, I know the integration part, I know the master data, I know the RICEWFs, I know the BASIS (at least SU53 ), I can instruct people for different tasks. Have I become a SAP QM consultant now, I thought YES but.

 

T W I S T !!!!

As soon as I started as support team for SAP, I heard about Configuration settings, SPRO .

 

I did not know about this. Where did this come from? We are done with Go-live and where this config part was hiding whole year. Standard answer: This is consultant job. Now you are going to become a consultant so you must know about the configuration settings.

Ahh.... I started exploring it (and still exploring). Before this moment, I had not used QM beyond our business scenarios.

 

Exploring further, I landed up on SCN..

 

What do I find here?  I find several requirements needed to be mapped in different ways, even though they could be similar. I find how a feature can be used in different business cycle. I find the basic concepts which I had never even thought of. I find people struggling to accept the change management. I see people looking around for a solution, SAP just does not recommend. I have found lot of things, I have known lot of things.... So, Have I become a QM consultant?

 

I guess not. I believe SAP is an ocean & I have got only a drop yet. And this journey is long, very long... So much to learn, so much to explore.

Long journey, challenging journey yet interesting !!!

 

I'm sure you guys would definitely agree to what I have said.

This Blog gives the various Inspection Types applicable for the different Material Movement Types broadly used in day to day transactions.

 

Types of Inspection

  • There are both Stock & Non-stock relevant Inspection types. Stock relevant Inspection has posting to be done along with the Usage Decision. Ex: Inspection Types - 01, 04, 05, 08. Whereas, for Non-stock relevant inspections, only usage decision is applicable. Ex: Inspection Types - 02, 06.

 

Multiple Inspection Types:

In case of multiple inspection types assigned to the Material from same Inspection Lot Origin, then the system chooses an active inspection type during inspection lot creation based on the following order:

 

  1. The inspection type is determined using a special rule. It can be determined, for example, for inspection lot origin 01 from the quality information record, or for inspection lot origin 03 from the order type.
  2. If there is no special rule and the indicator "Preferred inspection type" is set, the system chooses this preferred inspection type for the corresponding inspection lot origin.
  3. If the indicator "Preferred inspection type" is not set for any of the inspection types for the inspection lot origin, the system chooses the inspection type that was assigned to the inspection lot origin in Customizing as variant 01.

 

Movement TypeMovement Type TextMovement indicatorInspection Lot OriginInspection Lot Origin Text
101GR goods receiptGoods movement for purchase order01Goods Receipt
101GR goods receiptGoods movement for production order04Goods Receipt from Production
101GR goods receiptGoods movement for purchase order08Stock Transfer
103GR into blocked stckGoods movement for purchase order01Goods Receipt
105GR from blocked stckGoods movement for purchase order01Goods Receipt
123RE rtrn vendor rev.Goods movement for purchase order01Goods Receipt
123RE rtrn vendor rev.Goods movement for production order04Goods Receipt from Production
123RE rtrn vendor rev.Goods movement for purchase order08Stock Transfer
125GR rtn blkd stck revGoods movement for purchase order01Goods Receipt
131Goods ReceiptGoods movement for production order04Goods Receipt from Production
162GR rtrns reversalGoods movement for purchase order01Goods Receipt
162GR rtrns reversalGoods movement for purchase order04Goods Receipt from Production
201GI for cost centerGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
202RE for cost centerGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
221GI for projectGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
222RE for projectGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
231GI for sales orderGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
232RE for sales orderGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
241GI for assetGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
242RE for assetGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
251GI for salesGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
252RE for salesGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
261GI for orderGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
261GI for orderGoods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
262RE for orderGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
262RE for orderGoods movement for delivery note05Other Goods Receipt
281GI for networkGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
281GI for networkGoods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
282RE for networkGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
282RE for networkGoods movement for delivery note05Other Goods Receipt
291GI all acc. assigmtsGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
292RE all acct assigmtsGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
301TF trfr plnt to plntGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
302TR trfr plnt to plntGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
303TF rem.fm stor.to plGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
303TF rem.fm stor.to plGoods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
305TF pl.in stor.in pl.Goods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
305TF pl.in stor.in pl.Goods movement for delivery note05Other Goods Receipt
309TF tfr ps.mat.to matGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
310TR tfr ps.mat.to matGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
311TF trfr within plantGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
312TR transfer in plantGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
315TF pl.in str.in SLocGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
322TR quality to unr.Goods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
332RE to sampling QIGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
349TF blocked to QIGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
351TF to stck in trans.Goods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
411TF SLoc to SLocGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
412TR SLoc to SLocGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
413TF SLoc to sls orderGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
414TR SLoc to sls orderGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
415TF SLoc to projectGoods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
416TR SLoc to proj.Goods movement w/o reference08Stock Transfer
451GI returnsGoods movement w/o reference06Return from Customers
452RE returns reversalGoods movement w/o reference02Goods Issue
453TP returns to ownGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
457TP Returns to own QIGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
501Receipt w/o POGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
503Receipt to QIGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
511Delivery W/o ChargeGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
521Receipt w/o orderGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
523Rcpt QI w/o prOrderGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
531Receipt by-productGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
552RE scrappingGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
554RE scrapping QIGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
561Initial stock entryGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
563Init. entrStBals: QIGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
571Receipt assemblyGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
573Rcpt QI assemblyGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
575Rcpt blckd assmblyGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
581Rcpt by-prod networkGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
601GD goods issue:delvyGoods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
602RE goods deliv. rev.Goods movement for delivery note05Other Goods Receipt
603TF rem.fm stor.to plGoods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
605Goods movement for delivery note05Other Goods Receipt
641TF to stck in trans.Goods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
643TF to cross companyGoods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
645TF cross companyGoods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
647TF to stck in trans.Goods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
651GD ret.del.  returnsGoods movement for delivery note06Return from Customers
653GD returns unrestr.Goods movement for delivery note05Other Goods Receipt
655GD returns QIGoods movement for delivery note05Other Goods Receipt
661GI returns to vendorGoods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
662RE ret. to vdr revrsGoods movement for delivery note05Other Goods Receipt
671TR to stck in trans.Goods movement for delivery note05Other Goods Receipt
672TF to stck in trans.Goods movement for delivery note02Goods Issue
703GR phys.inv: QIGoods movement w/o reference05Other Goods Receipt
871Goods movement for purchase order01Goods Receipt

1.     Introduction

This Blog describes the Quality Control of Geochemical Samples in Mining Industry and the terminology related. Very often in the mining industry, there are various physical, chemical, acid and other tests that are to be conducted to assess the quality of the metal ores. Due to the volatile nature of the various materials such Iron Ore, Phosphorus Ore etc.,, their properties needs to be checked frequently. For example, percentage of moisture, compressive strength, density, Percentage of Oxides, porosity, Loss on Ignition, Metal % etc., change with the time.


2.     Terminology Used in Quality Analysis (Mining Industry)

 

2.1. Point of Analysis

  • Origin Analysis:

Quality results are checked at the Mining site

  • Destination Analysis:

Quality results are checked at the Destination/Customer site

  • Negotiation:

Quality results are sometimes decided by negotiating between Mining Company & Customer. (Depends on the Agreements between two parties)


2.2. Parties conducting the Analysis

  • Client:

Quality results are checked by the Mining Company

  • Independent:

Quality results are checked by the Independent Vendor (decided by both Mining Company & Customer)

  • Umpire:

Quality results are checked by the Third Party

  • Customer:

Quality results are checked by the Customer


2.3. Geographical Location/Testing Laboratory

 

  • Location/Laboratory:

Analysis conducted at a particular geographical place or location. For example, Laboratory, Oman, New York etc.,

3.     Mining Industry Requirement

As the quality parameter values vary frequently, many a times, the quality analysis is carried out is differentiated based on the Geographical location, Time & the party conducting the tests. Due to these reasons, many results are recorded for the same characteristic. In order to accommodate these requirements in SAP Quality Management module, the Origin of Results Data can be used. This concept avoids creating multiple characteristics for the same quality parameter that is to be checked. Moreover, in Mining Industry, the invoicing and billing depends on quality of the mining material. For example, for the Material Ore with less moisture percentage is invoiced with less cost when compared to the Material Ore with more moisture percentage. This can be addressed using the Origin of Results Data.

4.     Significance of Origin of Results Data

The results origin entry defines the source of information. This can be assigned to the characteristic in the Inspection Plan or in the Results recording screen. As long as the inspection characteristic has the status "in process", results origin during results recording can be specified. 

5.     Configuration Required in SAP

Navigation Path: SPRO > Quality Management > Quality Inspection > Results Recording > Define Origins of Results Data 1.jpg2.jpg3.jpg

Origin of Results DataShort Text
Z1Origin - Client Analysis
Z2Origin - Independent Analysis
Z3Origin - Umpire Analysis
Z4Origin - Customer Analysis
Z5Destination - Client Analysis
Z6Destination - Independent Analysis
Z7Destination - Umpire Analysis
Z8Destination - Customer Analysis
Z9Negotiated Client and Customer Analysis
ZAOman Main Laboratory
ZBOman Supporting Laboratory
ZCOman External Laboratory

 

5.1. Detailed Explanation of Configured values

 

  • In the Origin of Results data configured, Z1 to Z8 are analysis values with reference to the Parties conducting the Test (Client/Independent/Umpire/Customer) and the Point of Analysis (Origin/Destination)
  • Z9 refers to the negotiated value between Client and the Customer
  • ZA to ZB are the values with reference to Geographical location (Oman Lab)
  • In addition to the description of the results origin, data source for the inspection results also can be selected in the configuration

 

6.     SAP Scenario

Below is the scenario demonstrated for usage of Origin of Results Data.

6.1. Master Data

6.1.1.     Master Inspection Characteristic

 

  • Create Master Inspection Characteristic Master using Transaction code QS21
  • Iron content (Fe) is considered in the below example with Quantitative characteristic

4.jpg 

6.1.2.     Inspection Plan – Result of Origin assignment

 

  • Create Inspection Plan using Transaction code QP01.

5.jpg

  • Assign Master Inspection characteristic for the Operation.

operationmicassgmt.jpg

  • Single Master Inspection characteristic (Fe) is assigned to assess the same characteristic at various ports or at different point of time etc.,

 

  • Select Master Inspection characteristic and Click on General Data Details

7.jpg

  • Assign Origin Results Data Z1- Origin - Client Analysis for the Characteristic as shown below.

8.jpg

  • Similarly, assign Origin Results Data Z2 - Origin - Independent Analysis for the Characteristic 20 as shown below.

z2.jpg

  • After assigning the Origin results data for all the characteristics, save the inspection plan. Message will be displayed as below.

 

6.2. Transaction Steps

6.2.1. Inspection Lot creation

  • Create Inspection Lot using Transaction QA01 (Inspection Type 01 is used in the below example).
  • Enter Quantity details & assign Inspection Plan.12.jpg

          13.jpg

6.2.2.     Results Recording

  • Record the results for the characteristic using QA02/QE51N transaction

  12.jpg

  • In the Record Results: Characteristic Overview screen, we can observe that the result is recorded for the same characteristic with different Origin Results Data.

 

  13.jpg

 

7.     Benefits derived with Usage of Origin of Results Data

 

7.1. Invoicing

 

Depending on the agreement between the Mining Company and the Customer/Vendor, the appropriate result can be considered for the Invoicing (out of all the values recorded for the same characteristic).


7.2. Batch Update Functionality

 

Minor enhancement can be done to the standard batch update functionality while taking Usage decision for the inspection lot, in order to update the batch value with one of the results recorded based on pre-configured conditions.

A continuation of a series of blogs:

Blog 1: http://scn.sap.com/community/erp/operations-qm/blog/2013/09/23/qmcharacteristicsspecificationsclassification-blog-1

 

QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 2

 

GC’s and MIC’s

 

Ok.. lets talk about this linkage thing.  How does this work and what does it mean.  First off, lets understand the main reason this is done.  We already discussed how we have two different areas of SAP that kind of grew up separately and now need to talk to each other. But in order for that communication to happen, there has to be a common language.  With regard to the characteristics this primarily means the following three items have to be compatible:

    • - Data type (char or numeric)
    • - Unit of measure, (UOM),
    • - Decimal places

 

This ensures that the values transferred from the MIC are not truncated, misrepresented or other wise corrupted.

 

There are basically only two combinations  of characteristics that can actually be linked.

 

  • - A GC of Char data type that uses catalogs as the values, can be linked with a qualitative MIC
  • - A GC of numeric data type can be linked with a quantitative MIC.

 

You can not use GC’s with a date, time or currency data type.

You can not use GC’s that are set up for multiple values.

You can not use MIC’s with the “classed recording” control indicator clicked on.

You can not use MIC’s that only allow defects recording.

 

Those are the general rules.  Depending on how you use some MIC’s and what control indicators you select, you may run into trouble with trying to link them to a GC.   If you try to change control indicators on a linked MIC, you will get a pop-up box like the one below.  PLEASE click the help icon in the information box.  The help there will explain some of the reasons certain control indicators can’t be changed.

 

Screen Shot 2013-10-03 at 5.04.32 PM.png

 

Now… before we actually create and link any characteristics, from a consulting point of view we need a rationale as to exactly what is going to constitute a test.  There is no hard and fast rule for this.  I’d like to think there is, but the client is always correct.

 

What I try to push as a standard is that if any of the following items are not the same, it should be new GC/MIC. 

  1. Basic test method
  2. UOM
  3. Number of Decimal places (Sensitivity)

 

So lets take an example. A simple Assay.  A common test in many companies.  We can have the following IF there is only one way to run the test:

 

GC_Name

GC_Description

UOM

# Decimals

FE_PCT_0

Trace FE, %

%

0

FE_PCT_1

Trace FE, %

%

1

FE_PCT_2

Trace FE, %

%

2

FE_PCT_3

Trace FE, %

%

3

FE_PCT_4

Trace FE, %

%

4

 

Depending on HOW the assay is run we could have multiple assays.  For instance, FE can also me determined by Mass spec and by GC-MS. 

 

GC_Name

GC_Description

UOM

# Decimals

FE_MS_PCT_0

Trace FE by Mass Spec, %

%

0

FE_MS_PCT_1

Trace FE by Mass Spec, %

%

1

FE_MS_PCT_2

Trace FE by Mass Spec, %

%

2

FE_MS_PCT_3

Trace FE by Mass Spec, %

%

3

FE_MS_PCT_4

Trace FE by Mass Spec, %

%

4

FE_GCMS_PCT_0

Trace FE by GC Mass Spec, %

%

0

FE_GCMS_PCT_1

Trace FE by GC Mass Spec, %

%

1

FE_GCMS_PCT_2

Trace FE by GC Mass Spec, %

%

2

FE_GCMS_PCT_3

Trace FE by GC Mass Spec, %

%

3

FE_GCMS_PCT_4

Trace FE by GC Mass Spec, %

%

4

 

If there are other testing techniques, then the list of characteristics would be expanded as appropriate.  

 

Consulting Note 1: Determine your list of general characteristics first, before attempting to develop your MIC’s.  It is much easier to create your MIC’s with a reference to the GC then it is to establish this link later on.  Even if you don’t plan to use all your characteristics as GC’s or batch characteristics, plan and develop your test list as if everything will be a batch characteristic. 

 

The holy grail is a single list of tests utilized across the entire enterprise with no duplications.  Plants and products are not to get their own unique tests because they think they are ‘unique’ or are different.   Remember, different method names and even different preparation methods are allowed in different plants.  The key would be to determine if customers, or an outside regulatory agency, would, on an analytical basis, accept the test values as interchangeable.  If they would, they are the same test.  If not, they are different tests.

 

You might have some tests that you expect to only set up as MIC’s because they can’t be linked to a GC.  That’s fine, but go through the same exercise for all your tests and pretend as if they will all be linked to GC’s.  Once your master list is established, you just identify these as not needing GC’s.  But your descriptions, decimal points, UOM’s etc. will still all be needed to set up the MIC. 

 

Conversely, you might have GC’s that won’t need MIC’s.

 

There is no real hard and fast rule..  But you want to attempt to avoid duplication of what is basically the same test.  This is simply a guideline and based on my past experience.

 

Consulting Note 2: Some UOM’s are directly convertible.    For instance, %, PPM, PPB and PPT can all be converted by SAP. Laboratories across the enterprise should standardize on what UOM they wish to record against in the laboratory and internally as a business for a given test.  If the data needs to be reported in different UOM’s, this can be done directly in the COA profile.  I.e. you record in % but report to certain customers in PPM’s.  If you do this, you may also need to consider a custom text description for the characteristic within the COA profile. You are installing a computer system, maximize it's usage!

 

Consulting Note 3:  Some tests can easily be calculated from others.  A good example are tests in the chemical industry called “Screens”. These tests are primarily for evaluating particle sizes.  It involves using a screen(s) to pass material thru.  The amount of material left on the screen is an “ON” test while what falls through the screen is a “THRU” value.  A product may be passed thru three or more screens.  A THRU value can be calculated as 100% minus the ON %.  And of course the ON % can be calculated as 100% minus the THRU % value.  Some customers want the “ON” value reported to them on the COA, while others want the “THRU” value reported.  Don't make your lab techs record virtually the same test value multiple times in an inspection lot!!!

 

Plan to set up the system so that all laboratory personnel record one or the other.   In the above example get the technicians in the lab trained to do all THRU measurements.  Then all the “ON” tests are placed as calculated characteristics at the end of the inspection lot.  Don’t make them record both because some customers want the ON value while others want the THRU value.  And don't have them record two THRU values and one ON value.   Pick one or the other for the techs to record.   All of course will all need to be set up as GC’s and MIC’s.  These are just a few examples.  I know there are other series of tests like this.

 

The idea is to get the labs to be consistent so that everyone records things the same way in all plants with NO duplication of recording.

 

This helps in training and in reducing lab errors.

 

Consulting Note 4: Try to establish the list of characteristics as if there were no customers.  Stick to what  you would have the lab testing your products for if you were just bringing the product to market with no customers.

 

There really should be NO customer specific tests. They are simply tests.  You might choose to run a test on a product for a customer, but during the setup and design of your characteristics it should not be designated as such unless the test is globally known as the “ACME WETTING TEST”.  (yes.. I totally made that up.)  These types of tests are usually application specific tests.  I.e. they are unique to the customers end use of the product, for example, time for a particular paint formulation to dry on a customers proprietary substrate material.

 

You will have tests, mandated by customers, that must be set up and run as part of a material's standard inspection approval process.  Maybe because that material is only sold to one customer.  But don't make all the tests on the product as customer specific tests.  Only a handful will truly be application or customer specific.  Set them up simply as another test.  If you scan down your final list of GC's and MIC's to create, and in the test descriptions, you constantly see customer names cropping up, you're probably headed for a difficult implementation regardless of what final design you settle on.

 

Ok.. probably a good stopping point here.

 

I expect my next blog will deal with the general characteristics and their interaction with the MIC’s when they are linked.

 

Please add comments and feel free to add any "war stories".  I love to hear of good and bad examples!!!  Especially bad!!

 

This blog is Copyrighted October 3, 2013 by HCS Enterprises, Inc. This blog may not be used by anyone for any commercial purposes without permission.  It may not be reproduced, in part or in its entirety, in any form, printed or digitally reproduced.  Permission is granted to individuals to maintain a copy for personal use and reference only.  It, or any part of it, is not to be used for training documents, training classes, project documentation, end-user handouts, cheat sheets, reference documents, slide presentations or any other use that may not as yet be envisioned.  Permission for use is provided to SAP under the terms and conditions agreed to by participating on the SCN website.

QM/Characteristics/Specifications/Classification – Blog 1.

 

This is the first blog of a series of blogs and documents I intend to write and post.  The series of postings will attempt to explain the relationships and issues with how specifications are kept in SAP and in particular how batch management is impacted.  Or probably more accurately how batch management affects QM.

 

I’ll not only include the technical process around this subject, but I’ll try to provide some functional information around these processes.  The how’s, the why’s, the pitfalls, the benefits, the pros, the cons, etc…  I’ll also try to provide some real world examples of how certain techniques can be used.

 

I also hope that other QM experts here will chime in with their own comments.  I will take all comments constructively and will make every attempt to correct or update the blog/document where necessary.  For those experienced QM folks, please have patience with these blogs.  A lot of these blogs and documents will be old stuff to you.

snooze.jpg

But hopefully you can comment and add to what is presented. 

 

So, to begin this series, I think some background knowledge should be covered.  One of the first things that I think is crucial to understanding these QM processes is understanding the relationship between Master Inspection Characteristics (MIC’s) and General Characteristics, (GC's), You may find SAP documentation as well as consultants or clients referring to general characteristics as batch characteristics, or class characteristics.  In this series of blogs and documents I will use the term general characteristics.

 

The first key concept to understand is that MIC’s are only known to the QM module in SAP.  General characteristics are used by all other areas of SAP.  With only a handful of exceptions, QM does not really know about GC's. Why is this?  To be honest, I don’t know 100% for sure but I’ll give you my thoughts on this.  Maybe a true SAP historian can comment and let me know if I’m right or not.

 

In any case, the QM module pre-dated the classification system. I believe classification was introduced back in 3.1, I think with the 3.1F version.   I’m going to guess that classification was developed by an SAP customer/third party firm and then bought out by SAP and added to SAP. That’s a total guess however.  In any case, you have to remember that SAP was at the time, a business system.  It wasn’t designed as a full blown LIMS.   It was to provide the basic laboratory functions to support the business.  The QM module wasn’t really meant to do much outside of collect final product test results, provide a certain amount of in-process testing and control, and allow a formal way to release product and print test results on a certificate to support the required SD documents.  It's grown a lot since then!  There was no batch management and quality and testing was mostly plant centric.  So MIC’s were plant centric data.

 

With the release of batch management and classification, there came a need to get QM test data into the batch record.  Batches were designed to use general characteristics, and since by definition, batches can only have one current test value for any given test, they had to figure a way to get QM and Classification to integrate somehow.

 

I am sure there were a ton of design meetings and I’m sure many things were considered.  But for better or worse, the infamous linkage between MIC’s and GC's was created.  A field (ATINN) was appended to the QPMK table and the marriage was made.

 

Now since GC's are really client level data, and MIC’s are plant level data, this now impacts the QM design.  Since only one MIC can be assigned to one GC this can cause some problems.  If you have a MIC, say VIS003 in plant 1000 and VIS003 in plant 1001, you cannot assign them to the same general characteristic VISCOSITY. 

 

Typically, (BTW: for future reference that’s my way of saying that nothing is absolute, and somewhere, there is probably a valid exception but you really, really want to avoid the exception), you do not want to create multiple general characteristics to match up with multiple MIC’s across multiple plants.  If you think you have this need, go back and think it through carefully.  Think about how batches work, the batch level you use, the transfer of material between plants, to distribution centers, to consignment stock, how the production chain works, producing certificates, using batch determination, batch derivation, copy inspection results, etc…  You’ll hopefully see that it would be a bad idea.

 

Fortunately, SAP allows us to share MIC’s across our inspection plans and tasks lists.  Doing this does allow us to  minimize the number of MIC’s required.

 

So, define a master data plant.  Even if you’re on a small project and only have one plant, make sure you design from the start as if you have more than one plant.  Define the one plant as your master data plant up front.  Have it recognized as part of your design documents as the master data plant right from the start.  You might even suggest creating a virtual plant just for master data. Other modules often can find a master data plant valuable. 

 

Screen Shot 2013-09-23 at 10.54.18 AM.png

 

If you are in what I call a silo’ed business, whether for practical reasons, (GMP reason),  or political reasons, (I don’t want people seeing my data), a virtual plant allows you to provide appropriate users access to the virtual plant, without giving them access to another plants data.  If you have two or more very disparate businesses working in the same SAP client, you might need to have two or more master data plants.

 

In lieu of having a specific virtual master data plant you might consider using a “plant” that was only set up to be used as a corporate location or sales location.

 

In any case, hopefully now, your design has all the MIC’s created in one master data plant, and each MIC will be linked to one and only one general characteristic.  This is important as I will be basing the remaining blogs on this concept.  At appropriate places I will try to point out what issues would happen if you used a multiple mic’s across multiple plants design.

 

Ok… this is probably a good stopping place.  The next blog of the series will discuss the impact of linking MIC’s with general characteristics and some of the more technical issues associated with the linkage. It will serve as a basis of how specifications are maintained.

 

 

Next Blog:  http://scn.sap.com/community/erp/operations-qm/blog/2013/10/03/qmcharacteristicsspecificationsclassification-blog-2

 

 

 

 

Ok.. vent day!  I got frustrated today with the lack of response from original posters (OP) regarding their questions.

 

So I decided that I'd do a bit of research. 

 

The folks who use the QM space here are very fortunate to have several people that respond to questions here.  There are a good half-dozen or more consultants here that regularly  take the time to respond to questions.  Very few questions go without a  reply or answer and most are replied to within a 24 hr period.

 

NONE of us are SAP employees.  We do this primarily because we get value from researching questions, learning about new user requirements,  gaining tricks of the trade, and learning about business processes that we might not run across, etc.. etc..   Trust me, the points mean nothing.  You don't spend the time here because of points.  You spend the time here because you enjoy it, you like your vocation, and want to learn more as well as help others.

 

But what I'm seeing is that many of the OP's never respond back and don't close out their questions.  So it got me to wondering.  Are our QM folks the rudest folks around in SCN?  Or is it the same way in all the various spaces.  So I figured I'd do a bit of analytics.  I'm not going to get too extensive as I would think SAP already has these numbers.  It would be great if they would publish some stats in each space on the main page of the space..  like a monthly summary of the percentage of questions closed.  Kind of like a closure rate that most help desks use.  Anyway, that's an item for the idea space.

 

Even those people that close their discussions often never provide feedback on what worked.  They mark everyone's reply as helpful and never tell us what they actually decided to do.  Did they get the client to abandon the request?  Did they change a business practice?  Did they find another technical solution not proposed by the respondents?  That's part of the reason I answer questions.  I want to know the final answer!

 

So I reviewed a few spaces and of the ones I looked at, I'd have to say that QM does has the lowest closure rate.  So maybe we are the rudest of the bunch if closure rate could be considered a measure of rudeness in a technical forum.  Or maybe we just don't have the expertise here yet to give satisfactory answers?

 

Maybe at some point SAP will publish a more comprehensive list than mine below.  I'm sure they have it.  (Laure Cetin? )

 

So here is what I found:

 

QM spaceOpenClosed% Closed
JUN1042318.11%
JUL942218.97%
AUG (to 8/22)4248.70%


Avg. =15.26%




Manufacturing - Production Planning


JUL34211124.50%
AUG (to 8/22)1754721.17%


Avg. =22.84%




ABAP


JUL93743231.56%
AUG (to 8/22)55816823.14%


Avg. =27.35%




Product Lifecycle Management


MAR35614.63%
APR20520.00%
MAY271027.03%
JUN17419.05%
JUL12214.29%
AUG (to 8/22)1516.25%


Avg. =16.87%

 

 

Yes. of the 4 spaces I looked at, mostly for July and August, QM has the lowest closure rate at just an average of 15.25%.  It would be even lower if I just used July and August like I did for two of the other spaces.

 

The PLM space wasn't far ahead of QM.  But QM was still the lowest.

The ABAP'ers had the highest of the four spaces I looked at with a 27.35% closure rate.

 

I hope that OP's will look more at being courteous and doing what is the right thing.  YOU asked the question.  We gave you replies and usually valuable advice that might not normally be available anywhere else without paying significant money for a consultant to visit your site.  The very least you can do is reply to our questions, make a closing reply that explains the final outcome and at least say thanks.

 

Maybe some OP's can comment on why they don't take the time to respond or to close out their questions.  Hopefully I'm not the only one here that gets frustrated with this behavior.  I'd like to hear from others that feel the same way.  Or maybe I'm the only one?

 

Additional note:  The numbers above are constantly changing.  They must be considered as only a snapshot on the day I reviewed the areas and posted the blog. 

GYAN R

SAP Standard  QM Report

Posted by GYAN R Jul 23, 2013

T. Code         Description

Quality Planning:

Inspection Planning:

CC04            Display Product Structure

QP05            Print Task Lists (General)

QP08            Print Task Lists for Material

QP06            Missing or Unusable Task Lists (General)

QP07            Missing or Unusable Inspection Plans in Procurement

CA90            Where-Used List for Reference Operation Set

QP60            Display Task List Changes

 

Basic Data:

QS28            Inspection Characteristic List

QS26            Where-Used List for Master Inspection Characteristic

QS38            Inspection Method List

QS36            Where-Used List for Inspection Method

QS36            Where-Used List for Inspection Method

CA80            Where-Used List for Work Center

CA70             Production Resources/Tools: Where-Used List

QS49            Code Groups and Codes

QS59            Selected Sets

QDB3            Assign Sampling Procedures to Dynamic Modification Rules

 

Logistic Master Data:

Material:

QK02            QM Orders

QA08             Inspection Setup

 

Batch:

MB56             Display Usage

MB5M            Expiration Date List

COEBR        Batch Record

 

Procurement:

QI05             QM Control Key

QI06             QM Info Record

QV04           Quality Assurance Agreement

QV14           Technical Delivery Terms

 

Sales and Distribution:

QV24           Quality Assurance Agreement

QV34           Technical Delivery Terms

 

Quality Inspection:

Inspection Lot:

Key Figures For Material:

MCXA           Overview of Lots

MCXC           Overview of Quantities

MCXE           Quality Scores

MCXG           Lot Numbers

MCXI             Quantities

MCXK           Work

MCXM           Location/Dispersion

 

Key Figures For Vendor:

MCVA           Overview of Lots

MCVC          Overview of Quantities

MCVE          Quality Scores

MCVG          Lot Numbers

MCVI           Quantities

MCVK          Work

MCVM          Location/Dispersion

 

Key Figures For Customer: 

MCOA           Overview of Lots

MCOC           Overview of Quantities

MCOE           Quality Scores

MCOG           Lot Numbers

MCOI             Quantities

MCOK           Work

MCOM           Location/Dispersion

 

QA33             List (Inspection Lot Selection)

QGA1            Time Line for Quality Scores

 

Job Overview:

QA06            Deadline Monitoring of Batches

QA52            Source Inspection

QA18            Automatic Usage Decision - General

QA42            Automatic Usage Decision - Orders

QD35           Delete Quality Levels

 

Inspection Result:

Key Figures for Material:

MCXB          General

MCXD          Quantitative

 

Key Figures for Vendor:

MCVB          General

MCVD          Quantitative

 

Key Figures for Customer:

 

MCOB          General

MCOD          Quantitative

 

QGP1           History for Inspection Characteristic

QGA2           Display

QGA3           Print

 

Defects:

MCXX         Key Figures for Material

MCVX         Key Figures for Vendor

MCOX        Key Figures for Customer

 

Quality Level:

QDH2         History

QD35        Jobs for Deleting Quality Level

 

Control Chart:

QGC1        For Inspection Lots

QGC2        For Inspection Characteristic

QGC3        For Master Inspection Characteristic

 

Digital signature:

CJ00         Find

DSAL        Logs

 

Quality Certificates :

QC55        Certificate Receipt Worklist

QC20        Certificates for Deliveries

QC31        Archive Display of Certificate for Delivery Item

QC32        Archive Display of Certificate for Inspection Lot

 

Quality Notification:

Notification:

MCXV        Key figures for material

MCVZ         Key figures for vendor

MCOV        Key figures for customer

QM11         List

QM19        Multi-level list

QM50        Time series analysis

 

Item:

MCXP         Key figures for material

MCVP         Key figures for vendor

MCOP        Key figures for customer

QM15         List

 

QM13        List of tasks

 

Quality control:

QGA4        General QM Evaluations

 

Test Equipment Management:

Equipment:

IH08           Display Data

IE07           Equipment List (Multilevel)

QGP2        Calibration Results History

QGD1        Usage History

QGD2       Tracking

 

Maintenance:

IP16           Display Data

IP14           Where-Used List

IP24           Scheduling List

IP19           Scheduling List as Gantt Diagram

IW40          Order List (Multilevel)

 

Calibration Inspection:

QS26          Where-Used List for Inspection Characteristic

QS36          Where-Used List for Inspection Method

QS36          Where-Used List for Inspection Method

QA18          Jobs for Automatic Usage Decision

I had hoped to blog on a regular basis as well as contribute to the discussions.  But I am just so discouraged with the performance of SCN on the platforms I have available, that I just can't justify it any longer.

 

I admit I am working on an older IE explorer browser and evidently it is just not capable of working well with the new SCN.  I don't have control of the desktop I'm working on.  That is controlled by my client.  I am not hauling around a second laptop just to access SCN.  I primarily use an I-Pad for most other things and personal use.  I am rarely on my home desktop.  I am sure that most of the road warriors can understand that. 

 

The performance on the I-Pad is terrible on the cellular network and only slightly better when on a wireless network.  Especially when working on "guest" wireless or a publicily available network at a coffee shop, hotel, fast food network.  The public networks are always marginal and never as good as mine at home.

 

I find I can browse fairly somewhat OK when I browse as a guest.  But to log in and go back and answer discussions is extremely time consuming.  Just to read, review and answer 7-8 discussions can easily take me 40-60 minutes. 

 

So while you might see me here once in awhlle, I just can't spend the time on SCN that I have in the past.  It doesn't really pay the bills!!!

 

I would love to be a daily contributor in QM.  Sujit, Anand and a handful of others do a great job and hopefully they can continue to contribute.  Maybe once some of my clients update their browsers, or the performance suddenly improves for my I-Pad, I'll be back on a regular basis.  In the meantime, I'll probably be lurking around the corner. 

 

Feel free to send me a PM.  Just be aware it might take me awhile to respond.  If you have specific ideas of a blog you would like to see, let me know.  I can maybe write those in Word and than later on copy and paste it in so I might be able to do that once in awhile.

 

Good Luck!

 

FF

 

PS>. Please.. If you have similar performance issues please "Like" this blog. 

ISSUE

Recently I had the issue that a material has been wrongly assigned to an inspection plan in a test system. If you remove the assignment in QP02 via the delete button, the system only sets a deletion indicator in table MAPL on this assignment. Hence the material assignment is still blocking actions like "change of unit of measure". After digging a bit in the internet I found an SAP report for this, which I like to share also here on SCN.

 

STANDARD SOLUTION

The correct way to get rid of the assignment is to archive the complete inspection plan (I have not found a way so far to just archive a material-task list assignment).

 

WORKAROUND

Beside using transaction QSR6 (which deletes the complete inspection plan from the database without archiving), there is an SAP report that just deletes material assignments from the database: RCPMAPL1

 

With entering the task list type (e.g. Q) and the group ID, the report displays all assignments. The ones that should be removed can be marked and deleted. It is advisable to first remove the assignment with QP02, as then the deletion indicator will be visible in the report. This ensures that you tick the right assignment...

 

WARNING

As always with these kind of actions: be aware that you bypass most SAP security concepts (like dependency/integrity checks,...) with this action! You will most likely need a special approval from (IT) Managment and you normally have to record these actions and document them so that an auditor will understand why this had to be done.

 

Regards

MH

Some time ago, I posted about some quality management processes in the Oil & Gas industry; In this blog,I want to mention the work-around which is possible for BAPI_INSPLOT_SETUSAGEDECISION. The problem with this BAPI is that when this BAPI is called for an inspection lot, it requests the user to input the QCI parameters. SAP has not provided the importing parameters for these QCI parameters. Now how to cater for this process is what this blog is about.

 

The work around for this process is to create a wrapper class/program around the BAPI call. The BAPI call will exist within a program itself. This program will call the BAPI normally with the usual parameters; This includes the selected-set configured for a plant ( Code group, Selected set, UD Code, Force_completion ), the usage decision ( approval or rejection )  and the inspection lot. Once the BAPI call is made within this program , the QCI values are prompted up in a dialog box.

 

The wrapper program should generate a BDC session in the background for this BAPI call program and thus, pass on the values of the qCI parameters within the BDC. This solution can be adapted to the various options which may be linked in the follow-up notifications (QS51) -if there are any further dialog boxes which may occur. Further validations can be placed in the program to allow or disallow the BDC call ( in case of materials with no QCI parameters). This functionality is inherent to oil& gas but can be adapted to other industries as well.

 

It is expected that SAP will create a new BAPI for the posting of the usage decision for Oil and Gas sooner or later but until than, this solution will fulfill the requirement.

 

Now regarding the consideration of stock as a whole in a particular tank. Once stock has been received and mixed with the existing stock, certain quality parameters might change. For this reason, the entire stock is considered to be under a quality-check. In order to accomplish this functionality; a combination of standard functionality and ABAP was used. Once a stock movement has been completed through SAP TD; (regardless of pipe-truck-ship variations- O4H1). there can be a material movement made in the background using the Oil Bapi for goods movement. QCI values are taken at standard value sets for that time; other consultants might argue that these values should be taken from the receiving goods movement document;  Our reasoning for using the standard values set in the system is that there will be no variation in the quantity values once the stock has settled/mixed. 

 

The goods movement will trigger the quality inspection itself; further work has to be done using ABAP shared objects to transfer linked information into the secondary inspection lot. Physical inventory which would be an activity later on would record either gains or losses for the total quantity. In the case of loss, the stock in QI would be adjusted during inventory count whereas in the case of gain, an additional inspection lot (type 5) would be triggered.

 

On completion of the process; approval or rejection of the primary inspection lot; the additional lot created would have the same value set as well. There would be only one inspection lot at one time for the receiving location.

 

This highlights just one possible way to tackle the business scenarios which could arise. I would appreciate it if others could share their experiences as well.

I feel there is a dearth of discussion on the SAP Quality management functions and processes which are prevalent in the Oil and Gas Industry. During an implementation in the industry I had to face some scenarios which I would like to talk about.

 

The first case I would like to talk about is the usage decision scenario. A fairly simple one but since this involves the Oil and Gas Industry (Downstream) - Hydrocarbon product management – QCI (Quantity conversion interface).Whenever a UD is about to made and the stock is to be sent to either Un-restricted or blocked, it requires the QCI value to be entered; this is the normal scenario when operating in the foreground but if one need to process in the background then the BAPI provided by SAP- BAPI_INSPLOT_SETUSAGEDECISION does not fulfill the requirement.

 

Simply because it has no parameters for oil; this is a similar case to the goods movement BAPI; for which there is an alternate BAPI FOR Oil.  Even if you run the BAPI in the background and allow it to make the stock posting automatically, the system will ask for the QCI parameters. There is no current setting within it to provide the aforementioned parameters. Will an alternative BAPI be provided by SAP to cater for this requirement in the future?

 

Another scenario was related to a storage location. If we were to talk about a single location or a petrol tank; we would test the quality of the product on the entire tank. Why? When liquids mix, they can create further changes in the composition of the entire stock present in that tank/location.

Therefore, one must conduct a test on the entire available stock to verify that the quality indeed meets the pre-set requirements. For this procedure, there is no way to manipulate the existing un-restricted stock within a storage location. To cater for this requirement, one needs to make a further action to move all the existing stock into quality. This inherently is done by triggering another goods movement, thus another quality inspection and thus the need to create a link between the original stock movements with the movement done for the remaining tank. Therein the need to look at the QCI values comes again at this point

 

There is the third scenario of actually inventory posting but that is correctly handled by SAP through MI10; whenever there is a posting of actual stock for correcting the actual quantity; it makes an adjustment to the quality stock held by an inspection lot. These are just some of the discussions which I wanted to talk about; ASUG held a joint SAP QM improvement suggestion at the end of March. There are other consortiums & seminars which handle process improvements to the current set of functionalities. I believe someone would have already made the suggestions mentioned above but I wanted to highlight it to the community 

Actions

Filter Blog

By author:
By date:
By tag: